Why Conservatives Lose Gay Marriage Debate (And How to Win)

(Marriage in Norway) " by Charles Ravn

I have witnessed a number of heated exchanges between pundits and intellectuals on both sides of the gay marriage debate.

The conservatives' arguments leave so much to be desired, and expected.

The 2008 Republican Presidential candidate John McCain was a guest on the Ellen DeGeneres show. When the subject came around to gay marriage, the only thing he could offer was:

"I believe that  marriage should be between a man and a woman."

The first part of the statement: "I believe that . . " is a big part of the problem.

Conservatives base their arguments on more than individual fancy, but well-tested and long-lived institutions, where any changes that do take place, must do so deliberately: over time and with a great deal of thought.

The argument has to be more than tradition, but truth; reality, not just reason.

Marriage as an institution is under attack, however, not just from homosexuals intent on normalizing their own behavior, but also from heterosexuals who choose not to marry, or who have diminished the institution as unimportant, even a fussy nicety which takes away the fun and freedom of just living together with someone.

The rising rate of single mothers, single parents in general, plus the societal malaise which follows, should alarm even the most accomodationist or libertarian of advocates to defend as well as define marriage as between one man and one woman.

Before there was government, there was the family, and before the family, there was one family joined together.

There is no civil society without procreation, and this vehicle for population comes from men and women. The stability and growth of our communities depend on men and women having children. Sexual relations is about much more than temporal affections.

When times are tough, families sticking through those difficulties hold our cities and states together, the same way that deep, strong roots hold a tree in place during heavy, harsh storms and other inclement circumstances.

Marriages matter because children matter, and the well-being of individuals, from birth to death, should be respected and honored.

Yet the most frustration aspect of many conservative arguments is not what they say, but what they fail to point out:

Homosexuality is not an identity, no more than criminal behavior should be the final demarcation of an individual.

Homosexuality may not necessarily be a choice, in that individuals simply wake up and decide to enter into same-sex relationships. But following painful memories, or a childhood fraught with neglect and abuse, or simple confusion, men and women find themselves drawn to the same sex for intimate reasons. Only through obdurate bullying from militant homosexual interest groups did the DSM give in and remove homosexuality as a mental illness or a behaviorial disorder. Children of gay parents are also supporting true marriage, regardless of the cold stats infrequently proffered by pro-gay marriage advocates.

Politics aside, mental and physical illness is the norm, not the exception, with homosexual behavior. The whole arugment about civil rights, and legal disputes, falls apart as soon as conservatives, defenders of faith, family, and reality state the obvious:

Gay Marriage? Really?

Homosexuality is not an identity, nor a protected class of individuals.

Not a PC argument, but so what? It's time to tell the truth, and make the case plain and simple. Put aside the hurt feelings, reject the shame of the Left, and invite everyone to have the courage to face this problem head on.

Furthermore, what plan do conservatives have to deal with the judicial tyranny eating away at the fabric of civilized society? The real enemy goes beyond the marginal minority of militant homosexuals pushing this "lifestyle", but the bad lawyers in black dresses whom deem themselves fit to rewrite the basic tenets of law and life in the pursuit of some heady concept of equality.

A convention of states may be the next step, which would lead to a Constitutional Amendment. Federalism is one pillar in the genius of the United States Constitution, and future Presidential candidates could embolden local leaders to demand this convention, expressed in Article Five of the US Constitution, to settle the marriage issue as outside the purview of the federal government altogether.

One this is for sure, even if the Supreme Court rules up or down on gay marriage, the rap of the gavel, and the lengthy legal opinions of distant judges will not settle this issue, and conservatives should not give up the fight to make plain and clear that marriage is the glue which holds families together, who in turn make society sociable, and civilization civilized.